He said if a person doesn’t comply with a risk protection order, then police have to file a warrant and establish probable cause to obtain the weapon.

"There is no seizure authority," Gualtieri said. "You can ask them to comply with the risk protection order, but you can’t seize a person’s guns."

Why did you post an article with lies in it?

There is no seizure authority it says then it says you have to obtain probable cause to obtain the weapon.

We need to nominate a LF Liar in Chief to decide on this sort of lying thing.

You need to quit lying about stuff. You posted an article with a lie in it.

The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.

Reminds me of this verse.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Can I post articles with lies in them, too?

What are you jabbing about? Too?

I’m gonna stick with posting lies – if that is okay with you.

Salute, Gatlin

Ok you are going to "stick" with posting lies. Which means that is the norm for you. Ok we are informed that you post lies. Thank You.

I’m gonna stick with posting lies – if that is okay with you. Salute, Gatlin

Ok you are going to "stick" with posting lies. Which means that is the norm for you.

He (Gatlin) is trolling - throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks - poor baby is an attention whore.

His self-appointed mission is to get you to ban alternative news stories. Right now he's on a FTP banning jag - he won't stop until only mainstream sources that he agrees with are allowed here.

Of course, he will post his anti-libertarian and anti Ron Paul screeds from leftist sites. (remember when he posted articles from a couple of outright socialist sites?)

[A K A Stone] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.

Why? Do you expect the court to order the taxpayers to pay?

It should be noted that there is no possibility whatever that the Federal court will order the taxpayer to pay a dime pursuant to this lawsuit.

What is your legal theory that the taxpayer will pay?

If the acts of the employees are found to have been wanton, reckless or malicious, and the employees are ordered by the court to pay, why would the taxpayers be on the hook?

There were three Counts. The TFTP article failed to mention that all of Count 1 has been dismissed on summary judgment, and one of the three parts of Count 3 has been dismissed on summary judgment. Nobody will pay for those.

Actually, the TFTP article contained a whopper that officers had been ordered to stand trial. The case was filed in 2016 and no trial has been ordered yet. The litigation is still at a stage where nobody has been ordered to stand trial.

[A K A Stone] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.

Why? Do you expect the court to order the taxpayers to pay?

Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay out these lawsuits dumbass?

Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay out these lawsuits dumbass?

Here you go fucknuts. What is your legal theory for the federal court to order the sovereign state to pay. There were STATE troopers, not municipal employees. They were sued in their individual capacity. The State is not a defendant because that would be unconstitutional.

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677 (1974)

At 1 (Syllabus)

Held: The Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution bars that portion of the District Court's decree that ordered retroactive payment of benefits. Pp. 415 U. S. 658-678.

(a) A suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability payable from public funds in the state treasury is foreclosed by the Amendment if the State does not consent to suit. Pp. 415 U. S. 662-663.

At 675-677:

But it has not heretofore

415 U. S. 676

been suggested that § 1983 was intended to create a waiver of a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because an action could be brought under that

415 U. S. 677

section against state officers, rather than against the State itself. Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra.

They were sued in their individual capacity.

Oh, so the payment comes directly from the troopers pockets? Never gonna happen.

Oh, so the payment comes directly from the troopers pockets? Never gonna happen.

Is that all you can say about the U.S. Supreme Court decision that says:

A suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability payable from public funds in the state treasury is foreclosed by the Amendment if the State does not consent to suit. ... Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra.

A suit may not be brought by an individual against a State in Federal court. Add a State to the list of defendants and the suit gets tossed.

You're the expert calling others dumbass. Try harder. Distinguished from cases brought against cities and towns, this is against employees of a sovereign state that cannot be named as a defendant. That is why no state official appears as defendant in their official capacity. And yet, you seem to maintain that the State definitely will pay if the Court finds for the plaintiff.

If the Court rules for plaintiff, it will issue an order against the named defendants. If you insist that the Court will rule against a non-party to the litigation, take a seat on the short bus. It cannot issue an order against the State. You infer the State is required to pay. I am asking for your legal reasoning, if you have any. If you are just blathering, just say so.

If you are just to handicapped to understand the issue, or proficiently use the google, say that.

Just address the issue, or take your seat on the short bus.

The state is not even being sued here. The person is using ACLU lawyers. They are no dummies. If they had thought they could get money from the state in this case they would have sued the state as well. But the ACLU did not.

It is an individual suing in Federal court. The Constitution bars an individual from suing a State for damages in Federal court. The ACLU was smart enough not to add a State government as a defendant or the complaint would be tossed.

Shandle Marie Riley is now suing Hamilton County government and two Hamilton County Sheriff’s deputies after she claims

Note that Hamilton County is not a sovereign state. Hamilton County may be a named defendant where the sovereign state of Connecticut may not. The only way to squeeze money out of sovereign Connecticut is for the Connecticut government to consent and pay voluntarily.

Here you go fucknuts. What is your legal theory for the federal court to order the sovereign state to pay.

If i'm wrong i'm wrong. Who cares.

The cops still abused their power and did wrong. That was the point of the article.

I still think the govt will pay in the end. But I don't care one way or the other.

That’s a damned great question, Stone. And such a direct question deserves a simple pointed answer. I shall try to be brief in giving you one. I posted an article with lies in it because I read where you gave your enigmatic permission to Deckard for him to do just that. And I upon realizing it was your “accepted norm” saw the light as I simply want to also be considered a great asset and make terrific contributions to your LibertysFlame forum. Thank you, Sir, for asking.

That's some pretty blatant contempt toward you and the forum. It seems that that is the entire intent in posting this article, to create a pretext to insult you personally.

This is just another attempt by Gatlin to manipulate you.

Gatlin is depressed. He is dealing with issues. He is sad.

Hopefully he recovers.

That's some pretty blatant contempt toward you and the forum. It seems that that is the entire intent in posting this article, to create a pretext to insult you personally.

Yeah, he's doing the same thing over here, beginning from his first post to me:

Murray woman charged after letting cat lie on front lawn

A bit of a nutter, wouldn't you say?

OK, so I may have baited him a little by speculating about his predictable response in my "Poster Comments" when I posted the article.

And this was a about a cat being allowed to sit on a lady's lawn, on her own PRIVATE PROPERTY!

Seems as though the poor old chap may be going just a tad bonkers.

If i'm wrong i'm wrong. Who cares.

The topic being addressed is what TFTP/Matt Agorist got wrong, or what comment was very misleading. If you are wrong in your comments in defense of TFTP, then we are just back at TFTP got something wrong. Again.

My quoted comment was directly addressed to and responded to Deckard calling me dumbass. As is typical, Deckard has now skulked off in silence, incapable of admitting his bloviating had no substance.

The cops still abused their power and did wrong. That was the point of the article.

[A K A Stone #7] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.

Your comment at #7 was a cross-thread reference to the thread with the title, "Taxpayers to Be Held Liable After Cops Steal Man’s Phone, Film Themselves Conspiring to Frame Him."

"Taxpayers to be held liable" is the stated topic of the sensationalized title, and the topic of this cross-thread exchange.